Mike Leach Sues ESPN for Defamation

I'm not remembering all the details, but is it a given the statements made were false?

The Times story says Leach claims Adam James thought the punishment was "humorous."

That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Doesn't the saying go... The truth is always your best defense in a defamation case?

 

This is wrong. Negligence is not the standard here because Leach is a public figure. Actual malice is the standard. He has to prove that ESPN published a falsehood with actual malice, which is defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity.

Simply negligently publishing a falsehood about him is not enough.

 

Truth is not your best defense, it's your absolute defense.

The reason it's not your best defense is because if you get to the point where you're deciding the truth or falsity of a matter, then you're in front of a jury and you've spent a ton of money already to get there. You have other defenses which will cut the case off before that stage.

 

As the Don King case was! You really know this area of the law.

What's your opinion of this case being filed?

It would seem to me he has no shot of winning.

 

I didn't really follow ESPN's coverage of Texas Tech when Leach was fired, so I don't have a strong opinion on how good his case might be.

Generally, though, it's extremely difficult for a public official or public figure to win a defamation suit because of that actual malice standard. He'd pretty much have to be able to show that ESPN was presented with strong evidence of falsity and refused to act on it.

I think it's interesting that he also sued the Dallas P.R. firm, Spaeth Communications. My guess is that was done as a procedural tactic to keep the case in a Texas state court. If ESPN was the only defendant, ESPN would be able to move the case to the federal court in Dallas. With Spaeth in there, this stays in state court and most likely stays in the courthouse in Lubbock. If I'm ESPN, I'm wary of letting things get in front of a Lubbock jury.

 

Wasn't the Carol Burnett case against the National Enquirer one of the first examples of a public figure winning a court case against a media group?

There is a great scene in The Insider where Pacino meets with the NYT (I could be wrong with the paper) editor, and Pacino basically told the editor that he had hard evidence that the Times was going to run a false story. It killed the story on the spot, or delayed it enough for Pacino.

I must of had a really good Comm Law prof.

 

I think it's just a p.r. ploy by Leach so he can say to a school, "It's okay to hire me, Minnesota, I'm suing everybody for what they said about me."

I googled his attorney, Ted Liggett. He's a personal injury lawyer specializing in car accidents. If you're serious about a defamation suit, you hire that kind of attorney.

 

And if he can manage to get Craig James fired from ESPN, that's a nice side benefit for Leach.

 

And America.

 

Don't know if Leach has a case but no one can argue that ESPN exercised incredibly poor judgement (even for them) by allowing Craig James to comment on this on the air as an ESPN employee. They absolutely set themselves up for this to happen.

 

So family members cannot comment about family members? What about people commenting about former employers?

If Leach wins this, you will see breaking news slow down greatly. Shit, that is probably a good thing.

 

In what way did he comment?

What did he say? Anybody?